PSA: Upzoning reduces housing prices by increasing the supply and decreasing the cost of high-density land, which reduces the cost of producing homes. Hence, expanding the urban growth boundary and upzoning to apartments both reduce housing prices.
1/3
Eliminating property taxes sounds like relief — until you see what makes up the difference. Sales taxes and fees hit lower-income residents hardest. Property taxes are 70% of local revenue. There's a smarter path.
🎧 apple.co/4tce8Yd
#TaxPolicy #LandValueTax #HousingPolicy #ShelterInAFederalStorm
“We are done waiting for wealthy suburbs to voluntarily open their gates. We need state-level intervention to tear down the paper walls of exclusionary zoning.”
There is a lot of truth to this. It explains the reflexive NIMBYism of left-liberal baby boomers—ordinary citizens who indeed had to fight the destruction wrought by likes of Robert Moses, the all powerful highway lobby & the federal bulldozer. At first w/o any legal protections or tools.
Why Would Anyone Want to Live in an #Apartment?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVP5...
#housing #apartments #lifestyle #urban
Who told you that?
Not gonna opine on Seattle politics & which group was the NIMBYs. But what killed RE market everywhere was interest rates, material costs, tariffs, labor costs due to deportations. Doesnt seem likely cause of nat’l slump different in Seattle. More like exploiting the slump to scapegoat & kill IZ.
“3rd highest cost after soft & hard costs” is pretty far down the list! Besides capital costs can be offset by density bonus, parking relief, subordinate loan from city etc. Real issue is opex where prop tax is top 2 or 3 cost. City can offer PILOT or exemption for documented loss of rent revenue.
Good explainer!
Smaller, more affordable homes for first-time buyers have all but disappeared.
Scott Lincicome explains on @opinion.bloomberg.com who’s to blame.
Arent everybody’s housing starts down similarly since 2022? You dont change the law w/ every phase of the real estate boom & bust cycle. But wealthy city like Seattle could subsidize the affordable units at least temporarily or permanently if warranted. If Baltimore can do it, why not Seattle?
Do you have a fairer way to allocate when demand outstrips supply? Also, you assume IZ only produces “a few” units. But IZ in some cities produces on par w/ LIHTC & HOME, supplementing underfunded federal programs. And some have been very large over time. I think MoCo produced +/- 15k since 1970’s.
If anything, Affordable units 60 or 30% AMI more important cuz directly address a more severe need & bigger policy goal than new MR serving >100%. Dont understand the criticism of allocating Affordable units by lottery makes least sense. All Affordable Housing programs funded & build far below need…
I support funded IZ, at least in weak markets or bust phase of RE boom & bust cycle we are in nationally. But this argument makes no sense. “Broad affordability” of market is determined by many far bigger factors & costs. All production is good. It serves diff income levels, purpose which is ok but…
Falling rents in Austin is usually assumed due to new MR housing. But fact that Class C rents fell 11% vs 2% in high end properties suggests competition from new AH played a role. Still Austin recognizes need to do more: Income needed (84% AMI) for median rent still beyond low income households. 2/2
A TX version of IZ has been a rarely mentioned but key piece of Austin’s success. The city a density bonuses in targeted areas when buildings include income-restricted units—as well as bond levies to build more affordable homes. Austin now leads nation in production of affordable housing.1/
BRHP reopening its Housing Mobility Voucher wait list May 4 for one week! In accord w/ BRHP’s mission & Thompson v. HUD, families most likely to be prioritized are those w/ young children & ties to HABC public housing or voucher programs or living in hi-poverty City n-hoods.
brhp.org/baltimore-re...
Performative public lying is a hallmark of far right authoritarian parties
No new spending—but big impact.
The federal housing bills could reshape how housing gets built: streamlined permitting, zoning incentives, and permanent HOME + disaster recovery programs.
Small tweaks. Real implications.
bit.ly/4mw9LVF
#HousingPolicy #AffordableHousing #HOMEProgram #CDBGDR
Count your blessings though! No MR housing gets built in Baltimore w/o big subsidy & forced to spend of limited tax base more demo-ing vacants than providing Affordable Housing. Many great n-hoods & creative people, but due to segregation & low demand, no functioning housing market in 1/3 of n-hoods
Its kind of unusual for developers to build to anything but the top of the market rent they think they can get, IZ or no IZ, dont you think? Even here in Baltimore where demand at top of market is thin even in waterfront n-hoods. Would think high rent/constrained supply in CA market conducive to IZ?
I dont think there is much confusion. People now are aware of the historical origin: that exclusionary zoning was designed promoted by the “real estate men” as a tool to replace racial zoning. It was always about the people it intended to exclude, not just single-family use vs multifamily.
First, how are you defining & quantifying “cost?” Delta in actual or projected rent revenue on MR IZ units? Do you account for delta in MR rent revenue w/ bonus MR units vs w/o? What if project only approvable because affordable units included? Any broader cost/benefit analysis?
What do you mean by this? Sounds like you are assuming market rate units in buildings subject to IZ are built to a lower standard & lower rent level by virtue of inclusion of affordable occupants?Is there evidence for this? (And do you view it as good or bad?)
Single family rentals are essential reduce barriers to Fair Housing & econ mobility. New study finds “increased availability of rental homes in stronger school districts, is providing families with greater flexibility and expanding access to educational opportunity.”
news.vt.edu/articles/202...
There are 100+ different IZ programs in US, & most are funded IZ by this definition. IZ programs usually include a density bonus to offset costs & often add’l or alternative “offsets” like parking relief or tax exemption. Not sure why rarely mentioned in the discourse on here.
And look how his demagoguery on “welfare” —& legacy—turned out.
Hardly an earth shattering finding from playing around w/ made up assumptions in a simulation exercise limited to an LA TOD program. And a too common misstatement of the paper’s finding that actually supports the real world LA program.
Agree! Its irresponsible rhetoric that polarizes & distracts from less defensible cost drivers (e.g. permit & impact fees).
No its called Inclusionary because designed as tool to prevent segregation as new housing & n-hoods are built & to begin to undermine existing exclusion. Plus it adds to Affordable Housing supply—specifically in growth areas where development happens. (Via density bonuses can also add to MR supply).
